From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f179.google.com (mail-wr0-f179.google.com [209.85.128.179]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE06D29C7 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:53:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr0-f179.google.com with SMTP id w43so91880699wrb.0 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 06:53:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=wxnxxVQCh5/vQyC0+i/xYpo1azvM+elNhYy5gzo78WA=; b=v1rsaD06rElCjtBqCD5JTAc8NJWecMT888L4zS3KXIv5IMwCR2e99fpUuUle8qpj3v 4AkmAa7gXaj/MSqzSuGjYgIvljHmRdUqOCm620cEkIxj6tTrPvYaCNnYkoVJPnhw8jNQ Q93vaWfxgja+zkFugDClDdwaxbuDGh7mMAPSBiWdUGJLXWA22HcH9VSa+iX5O5qWmBUF XF1e932lywgg1j9kZz6p58ucV0Ng6eJmk6dFDtwmZNOnd6GnZmObOjMywQhDRZLx7Duj 4jYBntxyM4Phqf5000KomwZRDGh4ZdM4AyriKPn7E6C3H8ovlbjftnSkDfte6eB1FxxG ircw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=wxnxxVQCh5/vQyC0+i/xYpo1azvM+elNhYy5gzo78WA=; b=uTY+RFuloms78qHb5/9Xq23/JLDZyT/pFYFX+FzEiMPJBZYJdYUtwqrSZrp13Zeive 0XQssEDI0+cNm+26Zq52zkfkBHz/CY7Eq/G2nMK5BLl7qt4uodQR72q5DhNkJWjMF5IP NMC2b6l8YENgEatEhy3Kd2SmzcEnmviiLRWsCM/kE5II0LOtAyJdS62HGAyP/aX77FMf jfNsqZ0/NFyNFwFIX1UGJc4E7dxhlkoO/io9mN9nm7qLprJQ7rCJztUnqdksPcQFtAtB aIX7ON/zIinxo5ecL3OX9KhX0gSBV3rL7o4DVuk/qtJM/kmcd8v+1weVHfVQ/7JuaBWI mKaA== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2clenKHV6AWKN12atJVNz6OwvQDJSanBZBZS/kLpLpJ1u9+mD6CxaXRL16tSqfzZ6L X-Received: by 10.28.37.3 with SMTP id l3mr14666239wml.100.1490709230972; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 06:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bidouze.vm.6wind.com (host.78.145.23.62.rev.coltfrance.com. [62.23.145.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g5sm4939545wrb.48.2017.03.28.06.53.49 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 28 Mar 2017 06:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:53:41 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan?= Rivet To: "Van Haaren, Harry" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , Thomas Monjalon , "Richardson, Bruce" Message-ID: <20170328135341.GF7450@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> References: <1490701917-17089-1-git-send-email-gaetan.rivet@6wind.com> <1490702489-17950-1-git-send-email-gaetan.rivet@6wind.com> <20170328122000.GA24328@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170328124409.GC7450@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/1] pci: default to whitelist mode X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:53:52 -0000 On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 01:02:13PM +0000, Van Haaren, Harry wrote: >If I understand correctly an app that runs without any port parameters to EAL would now fail to find any ports? > >That would result in; >- testing frameworks (DTS, fd.io perf lab, customers, etc) would fail if not specifying ports Yes, sure. There are certainly people who would be impacted. I'd be curious however to hear from them and know exactly how many are using the blacklist mode. If I am writing a test for a device usually I explicitly specify the device and the corresponding topology. This always results in whitelist parameters. I can certainly imagine other people working differently. >- beginners just running ./app/testpmd would need to specify the "magic" -w-all Remembering starting with DPDK a few years back, I was actually confused a few times by needing to blacklist a few devices. The DPDK use case is extremely specific and my first intuition was that I'd have to assign specific ports. The blacklist mode was pretty much justified to me at the time as an historic cruft left there because no one wanted the hassle of removing it. I have never used it personally, so I'd be curious to hear about other users that would design their tests and application to rely on this blacklist mode. >- confusion about why previously working DPDK apps are now failing due to not finding any devices > >I'm not totally opposed, but we should consider carefully what impacts this change will have across the whole DPDK ecosystem, and if the change is worth it. If decided that "Yes its worth it", we would need to communicate this change very clearly. All documentation regarding running any DPDK app would need to be updated as part of this change. > >Personally I don't see the large benefit this patch brings, but more of a disturbance in the DPDK; I'm open to be convinced otherwise. > Ah sure, it won't happen overnight. It would be coming no sooner than 17.08, even maybe 17.11. It would have several deprecation notices for parameters that would change or disappear, and indeed the documentation should be updated in many places. I'm all for it personally. -- Gaëtan Rivet 6WIND